[jcifs] Re: Fw: SQL Server 6.5 and named pipes

[Christopher R. Hertel]

Of note:

Last time I spoke with the FSF's enforcement folk they told me that it is
the copyright holder's responsibility to enforce the licencing terms.  
(This is why the FSF likes it if you hand copyright over to them--it lets
them do their job.)

As stated publicly on this list several times, our intent with jCIFS is
that people should be able to write code that uses jCIFS as a library (or
"toolkit").  Modifications to jCIFS itself should be available under the
same license as jCIFS, but programs and utilities that simply use jCIFS
are in two parts:  the jCIFS part and the other part built on top of
jCIFS.  We're only claiming rights to the jCIFS part.

Note:  If FooBarInc modifies jCIFS and then uses the modified library as 
       the basis for a new product, then the only folks who have a right 
       to ask for source to the modified jCIFS library are those who have 
       the FooBarInc product (per the LGPL).

Chris -)-----

On Fri, Jul 16, 2004 at 10:19:34PM -0400, Michael B Allen wrote:
> Eric Glass said:
> > It was determined through correspondence between the Apache folks and
> > the licensing guys at the FSF that Java import statement-style linking
> > does fall under Section 6:
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.jakarta.poi.devel/5900
> >
> >
> > This ultimately ended with Apache determining that LGPL code could not
> > be used (their conclusion being that it would require their
> > application to be LGPL licensed); I personally believe this to be an
> > incorrect interpretation of Section 6
> 
> Sometimes you get people who like to just debate this stuff just to hear
> themselves talk. Obviously you have to use import statements to use a
> library and obviously you can use a Java library such that it is not a
> derived work. JTDS is clearly not a derived work of jCIFS if it just uses
> the public API. It's the spirit of the license that matters and the spirit
> of the LGPL is that if you use the library as a library, meaning you use
> the public API, then you are not obligated to do anything in return. If
> you actually modify the source code files that make up the library then
> the result would be a derived work.
> 
> The bottom line is that if it becomes established that simply using the
> public API of an LGPL library requires the caller to be LGPL as well then
> we will change the jCIFS license to MLGPL (Mikes Library General Public
> License). But that's not going to happen because the license will be what
> people who use it expect it to be and not what some idiots that like to
> create controversy through debate think it should be.
> 
> > In any case, I believe jTDS is already licensed under the LGPL (at
> 
> That doesn't matter. jTDS or anyone else that uses the public API of jCIFS
> does not have to be LGPL. If I hear about this again I will post a
> statement on the website that reiterates our non-viral interpretation of
> the LGPL so that it's clear to users of our library. And if any
> contributor with a copyright statement in our source disagrees with that
> interpretation their code will be removed.
> 
> Mike

-- 
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/     -)-----   Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/   -)-----   ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/     -)-----   crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/    -)-----   crh at ubiqx.org